Peter Rabbit's uncomfortable new coat
Storms in teacups are the best kind. One recently brewed up in a teacup so small that Beatrix Potter might have painted it in scrupulous detail for one of her classic children's books.
An editorial in July's "Country Life" magazine thundered: "PETER RABBIT, WE LIKE YOU AS YOU ARE."
"Peter Rabbit is changing shape," it rumbled. "His features are becoming soppier, his contour ... more bulbous." It complained that Frederick Warne & Co. [the publisher] "... is redrawing Beatrix Potter's characters for ... very little children [who] are being fed with versions that look more akin to cartoons."
The protest was echoed in other publications. Beatrix Potter's tales, with her illustrations and individual, matter-of-fact humor, are somewhat sacrosanct. Potter was a serious naturalist-artist, her animals sensitively observed and painstakingly painted. They are quite unlike anyone else's. To crudely redesign even one of them suggests lack of confidence in their already proven, century-old accessibility.
Frederick Warne & Co. thought they'd better defend themselves. Their statement (rightly) claims the company has maintained the integrity and values of Beatrix Potter's work" since 1902. The original books will be published as ever.
But the publishers also maintain they must ensure the work "continues to appeal to a contemporary audience."
Looking at Warne's 2001 catalog, it's clear that the current protests are shutting the gate well after the rabbit has bolted. Cartoonish videos of the books have been available since the early 1990s. More and more products offered look less and less like Potter.
The updated variations on Potter are presented with phrases like "a contemporary design approach to one of the world's favourite evergreen properties," and "the needs of current market and fashion trends."
Judy Taylor, an award-winning editor and author of children's books, has written a number of books on Potter's work. Ms. Taylor seems somewhat resigned to such dumbing down as applied to what Potter herself called "sides-shows" - the giftware, ceramics, confectionery, and "baby feeding ranges." But what Taylor does object to is the imminent (September) introduction of a range of actual books - for babies - that not only use the new Peter Rabbit image, but words that Potter never wrote.
The question is: What is the best way to perpetuate Potter? By reinventing her? By dressing her naughty rabbit in a shorter, brighter blue coat? Or by letting her go on speaking for herself?
